Inter-Research And Studies (IRAS)

The informality of these procedures also reflects the political philosophy that underlies the entire presidential system of the government, especially in the United States of America (USA). The assumption is that the chances of tyranny or dictatorship are reduced insofar as legislature and executive (and judiciary) branches of the government are separated in terms of both institutions and personnel. In the USA, the principle of checks and balances (for instance, the presidents authority to veto legislation or senates' authority to approve or disapprove president's appointment) is actually corollary to the more fundamental principle of separation of powers. By distributing a part of the powers of each governmental branch to the other branches of government, the writers of the Constitution intended to provide each branch with the means of ensuring its constitutional integrity. The record of parliamentary government, however, makes it clear that the principle of separation of...

In the contemporary world, it is also true that authoritarian governments or regimes are often identified by the presence of only one political party. Instead of classifying states according to the location and scope of political power, it in fact may be more useful to classify them according to the number and characteristics of their political parties. And there should be little doubt that a government that permits only one party to operate in the political system is an authoritarian government. No organized political opposition exists; there is no alternative set of political leaders that can take the place of the existing elites for the purpose of implementing new programs; political communications are strictly according to what the government and its ruling party allow; and alteration of government personnel and policies must take place within the single party, usually only after the death or purging of the dominant leader. Generalizations such as these are difficult to unders...

It will not come by a surprise to most of the history or political science students that most of the governments around the world and throughout the history deserve to be classified as "authoritarian". Monarchies (rule by one), aristocracies (rule by the titled few), oligarchies (rule by the untitled few, military, civilian) and plutocracies (rule by the wealthy) are all authoritarian regimes because the majority of citizens do not have any direct or institutionalized role in policy making; they do not participate in elections and they are not organized into competing political parties or clearly identified interest groups. As Greek and Roman political philosophers argued, however, government by the few does not mean that policy making will always be inconsistent with the interests and demands of the many in the society. In the past, for example, authoritarian governments have reduced or eliminated the influences of religious institutions over the social and economic lives...

Even when the divine right of the kings or sultans were an acceptable formula for legitimating royal authority, it was nevertheless true that the monarch depended on the support of a loyal cadre of advisers and bureaucrats to carry out his policies. It was the gradual evolution and institutionalization of the roles of advisers and civil servants that, in France and elsewhere, led to the establishment of the parliament (advisers) and the state's administrative apparatus (civil servants). An awareness of these historical trends, along with the conviction that democratic institutions are an illusion that conceals the political domination of a minority, has convinced some 20th century political scientists that government everywhere and always has been the affair of a few - neither one nor the many. In this context, aristocracy means government by an elite of the society that has high social status, wealth, fame and political power. These advantages are passed down from one generation o...

A large part of the answer to this question, though not all of it, has to do with the ability or willingness of the particular monarch and their successors to accept a progressive reduction in their political power. The classic example is that of England, following the establishment of William and Mary on the throne in 1689. Their coronation was contingent on their acceptance of parliamentary supremacy over the monarchy in the critical areas of public policy which includes taxation, finances, the military and its command, and the religion adopted by the monarch (This agreement between the English parliament and the monarch may be thought of as a social contract, although it was a social contract that excluded the participation of the majority of the people). Much of the subsequent political history England is the story of the increasing power of the parliament, especially the House of Commons, along with the declining power of monarchy. Today, it is fair to say that the British King an...